The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > forum deleted?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 07-08-2009, 03:02 AM
trekie's Avatar
trekie trekie is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Califirnia, USA
Posts: 1,230
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
There is no conflict, Monsieur, as science and religion are two different games ... and it is foul whenever one sides tries to play in the wrong game.
One's faith has nothing to do with nanotechnology and sciene has nothing to say about God.
Much Agree
__________________
The Truth is out There
I AM ANOTHER FRIEND OF ZARDOZ:

Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-08-2009, 03:07 AM
trekie's Avatar
trekie trekie is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Califirnia, USA
Posts: 1,230
Default

your very welcome
__________________
The Truth is out There
I AM ANOTHER FRIEND OF ZARDOZ:

Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-08-2009, 06:22 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
There is no conflict, Monsieur, as science and religion are two different games ... and it is foul whenever one sides tries to play in the wrong game.
One's faith has nothing to do with nanotechnology and sciene has nothing to say about God.
Best thing you've said in a long time, Horatio.
That is the person I knew.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 07-08-2009, 06:27 AM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

But surely there has to be a voice of ethics in science? Otherwise we'd be Borg in 200 years. At the same time, there needs to be a voice of reason in religion - a voice that tells us the earth goes around the sun.

What we need is for people to be less defensive re. their beliefs.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 07-08-2009, 07:07 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

couldn't hurt.
just might do some good.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07-08-2009, 07:39 AM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonsieurHood View Post
If a happy medium cannot be attained, then what's the solution? I cannot change the beliefs I hold dear when I know them to be true within my own heart. You cannot accept anything unless it adds up on paper or the theory of it pans out in a laboratory somewhere. I am a man of faith, you are a man of science. I don't see any contradiction between the two and you cannot see anything other than contradiction between the two.
Thats not quite what I tried to express in my post. What I tried to say was that sometimes different beliefs are in contradiction to eachother in certain areas. No problem, untill those areas are of public interest and political. I provided some examples, like marriage, tax law, environmental law, etc. etc.

It is those cases where the usual "we agree to disagree" does not suffice anymore to keep the peace. Its those cases where an agreement must be found or society reaches an unacceptable situation of stalemate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonsieurHood View Post
If someone proved in a laboratory somewhere tomorrow that something I believed that you didn't turned out to be true, could you accept it or would you try to disprove it regardless of the fact that it added up because it doesn't fit your idea of what is scientific?
I would have no other choice then to accept it, would I. If I would ignore facts, findings or arguments that contradict my worldviews instead of drawing the consequences of those new facts and still go on proclaiming my old worldviews to be true, then several things would happen: First, I would forcingly act hypocritical, because I would spout out statements that I am not honestly convinced of myself. Second, I would personally start to enter a state of delusion and my self esteem would suffer, because I would be aware that I am acting hypocritical, that I am wrong. I would be a liar, and that would sooner or later harm my own psychology. Doubt, depression, bigotry, delusion and self denial would be the consequences. Finally at the last stage I would become radical, because to uphold a position that lacks arguments would need me to use unfair rethorical methods like ad-hominem fallacies and character assasinations.
Besides, I am far to lazy for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonsieurHood View Post
Because that's the way I see the current scientific community, they try really hard to disprove things they don't approve of, but when it comes to things that further their own agenda or make their case against us, they're willing to accept things very easily that are either ludicrous or should at the very least merit much further study.
You seem to be under the impression scientists are all a bunch of atheists who cant think of anything more funny then to disprove religion. But if you would allow yourself to take a look at the history of science you will find the exact opposit to be true: Science started with the attempt to prove religion.

Take Thomas of Aquinus, who was paid by the Vatican to prove that Aristotle is not contradicting the bible. His solution was to proclaim that Aristotle is right where he doesnt contradict the bible and wrong where he does, no good arguments given.

Or take Spinoza, who attempted to solve the biggest contradictions in the christian and jewish worldview: How comes good people have to suffer?
His solution was to proclaim that humans have a free will and that they are merely harming themselves. But this explanation led to more problems then it solved.

Next stage, Descartes, who hoped to create a canon of the things we know for sure. He gave us the sentence "I think therefore I am". Based on that he made a list of things we know for sure. Bad for him, God was not among those things, so he had to come up with the "Ontological Argument for Gods Existance". The argument doesnt fly.

Take Geology that attempted to prove the Great Flood. Instead of finding proof for a flood it found that the earth was many millions years old, not just 6000.

Or take a look at Darvin. He didnt make his exhausting and life-threatening expedition around the globe to prove religion wrong. He did it to solve a serious problem of his time: If cows have been bred by man, is it possible certain creatures looked much different on the day of creation then they do today?
What Darvin found was troubling him a lot. The answer was a clear yes and it seemed that even man himself may have looked quite different a long time ago.
Darvin witheld his findings for many, many years to come.

Even nowadays quantum-physicists hope to find some proof for something that could be described as a creator god or at least gets close to it in analogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonsieurHood View Post
It is not an unrealistic hope to believe that we can coexist on this planet together, is it?
But we do, thats my whole point all the time. And we do get along perfectly as long as we accept that our beliefs may not allways meet with reality and that we have to deal with reality or one day it deals with us. And it seems reality doesnt care what god you believe in, it just rolls over all of us indiscriminatly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
One's faith has nothing to do with nanotechnology and sciene has nothing to say about God.
Exactly.

Last edited by Botany Bay : 07-08-2009 at 08:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 07-08-2009, 08:24 AM
FanWriter45's Avatar
FanWriter45 FanWriter45 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Conway, Arkansas. It's a nice little town with three Universities in it, and surrounded by woods.
Posts: 3,051
Default

We can co-exist. It's just that both religion and science needs to remember where the limits are... as the old saying goes, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

And that's the problem with creationism, (or it's rebranded name, ID) it tries to swing it's fist into the nose of science classrooms. Or stem cell research. Or school prayer. Or denying rights to people based on who they love, or defining people of different race than white as 3/5ths of a person, or threatening an old man with the inquisition because he disagreed about the Earth's place in the solar system, or... well, you get the idea.
__________________
Number Two: Conform, Number Six! Conform!

Number Six: I will not be stamped, filed, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! I am a person.

Last edited by FanWriter45 : 07-08-2009 at 08:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 07-08-2009, 08:44 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Botany that endeavor litteraly defies physics.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:14 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.